"I applaud and share [Obama's] vision of a future built by a strong and confident middle class in an economy that gives us the opportunity to reap prosperity through hard work and personal responsibility. It is a vision of the future proven right by our history."

Yeah, Romney's vision is of a weak and frightened middle class in an economy without opportunity for prosperity.

Of course, that vision, unfortunately, comes from looking at the last four years of the Obama administration.

And then there is the issue of the Democratic controlled senate which has done less than nothing.

The Dems had total control of the goverment for two years--they did pass the ACA for better or for worse. The Republican tsunami in the house and now we are gridlocked in the legislative branch. Not a bad thing in IMO--the less the legislature can do the better off we are.

Meade, if you know of any lawyers, ask them if it would have been in the Republican political interest to have cooperated with a successful Democratic president. How do you think would this have affected the reputation of their brand, given what happened to it in 2006 and 2008?

I was unaware that the R's dominated politics for the last 40 years--Who knew? I would suggest the "dominating politics" at least the federal level means that a single party controls the executive, and both houses of congress. That hasnt happened very often, although the last time was the first two years of the Democrat party.

I just don't think that intentionally working to keep a ruined economy down is a funny thing.

There are people way less fortunate than me, people who have been hurt by all this. And if I looked the other way while asking them to ignore my mistakes while I worked to make it worse (so that I could blame the guy in charge of fixing it), I wouldn't be very happy with myself.

Would you?

It's one thing to laugh at one's own misfortunes. Another to laugh at someone else's.

Re cooperation--the Simpson-Bowles commission offered some reasonable solutions to the fiscal state of the government that included both cuts and tax increases--Precisely how did the President respond to those?

Roger, the whole point is that whatever Obama agreed to, Republicans would have disagreed. He could have attempted to implemented the entire platform of the GOP 2012 convention. They'd have denied it.

They knew that cooperating with a successful Democratic president - regardless of the agenda - would have sealed their reputation (or so they reasoned). They made a calculated political effort over the course of the last three years to deny him any successes. They figured any success on his part would have decreased theirs.

Maybe they were right. Maybe they were wrong.

But to hold an economy and a country hostage over it is unforgiveable.

Obama knew he had nothing to lose. The Republicans made sure that the country would lose either way.

I think edutcher raises the appropriate point re the Dem controlled senate which has failed to pass a budget in well over 1000 days. My understanding, perhaps wrong, is the the presidents legislative priorities are tied to the budget that is submitted to the congress. Mr Obama's budgets have been a laughing stock that even his fellow party members fail to support.

Ritmo--I respectfully disagree with your analysis--The Simpson-Bowles commission did a reputable job goring oxen on both sides of the aisle. It was Mr Obama who disregarded it. Your are surmising that the Rs would vote it down--and you might be well right; but clearly the Dems in the senate have held almost every initiative in limbo for the last 2 years. Plenty of blame to go around, but to lay it all at the feet of the republicans, seems to me to be a bit overstated.

Ritmo typed. "just don't think that intentionally working to keep a ruined economy down is a funny thing"

Ritmo. Republicans want to make money. We do not give a shit if we make money with a Democrat or a Reoublican in charge as long as we can make money. Your statement reflects your parties love of power and its willingness to do anything to get and keep it. To think we would keep the economy down for any reason displays your ignorance of your opposition and of economic reality.

The opposition you have witnessed in Congress is the opposition to stupid ideas.

I always ask myself when I see these kinds of endorsements: Is there any reason at all that I should care what x thinks about the Presidential Race?

Crist lists a lot of reasons to support Obama, mostly tied to past performance. Are future results tied to past performance? And is the interpretation of the past performance accurate? Is the mindset that guided past decision-making the same one needed now? Those are the key questions. I don't believe Crist gives an accurate assessment because he is seeking consensus in his article.

Now that Tampa is out of harm's way, mostly from Isaac, I'm alarmed to see what might happen in New Orleans. Head's up, all you central Gulf Coasters!

Ritmo typed. "just don't think that intentionally working to keep a ruined economy down is a funny thing"

Ritmo. Republicans want to make money. We do not give a shit if we make money with a Democrat or a Reoublican in charge as long as we can make money. Your statement reflects your parties love of power and its willingness to do anything to get and keep it. To think we would keep the economy down for any reason displays your ignorance of your opposition and of economic reality.

The opposition you have witnessed in Congress is the opposition to stupid ideas.

The fact that Obama offered plenty of Republican tax cuts in nearly every economic initiative implemented, the fact that their candidates refused to endorse 1 part spending to TEN parts tax cuts, shows who's to blame.

Compromise is not a one-way street. When it's made to be a one-way street, during a situation in which the repercussions for not cooperating are dire, you know where the blame rests.

There's a whole 'nother economy out there that needs to make money too, though. Looking out for just your own and pretending that your situation is the same as everyone else's is just the sort of ignorant arrogance that I'll continue to call out, and that it looks increasingly likely that you'll continue to LOSE on. (Assuming you keep pushing the fight this way, and with the lack of successes to show for it).

It is worthwhile reminding ourselves of SecTreas Geithner's point made in hearings: (and I paraphrase) We dont have a plan, but we know we dont like yours.

Last I heard Geithner represents the administration. Yes, indeed, its all the republican's fault.

What I do know as fact is that unemployment has been over 8 Percent for over 42 months; the average net worth of Americans continues to decline. All of this under Mr Obama's stewardship of the economy (see Geithner's comment above).

I have to run along now for another busy day spent oppressing minorities, taking away Sandra Fluke's birth control, starving poor people, ruining the economy, and wheeling grannies off the cliff, all the while laughing at their misfortune.

Charlie Crist went to work for Morgan & Morgan after he left office. They're the biggest ambulance chasing law firm in Central Florida, and hugely profitable. Crist appears on billboards for them. ("Morgan & Morgan, for the People") Needless to say, John Morgan, the founder of the firm, is a big time Democratic party donor. He's hosted Obama in his house at least a few times over the last few year, including just a few weeks ago IIRC.

So what Crist is doing is what Crist has always done, namely whatever his pay masters tell him to do.

With Geithner, there is plenty of blame to throw around, Roger. And there's where you'll have allies on the left - assuming you care for them.

You can make it about him, make him about to a good scapegoat for the administration. But you'll find nothing on the left to unify its political self-interest as mutually exclusive with the economy as you'll find coming out of the mouths of Republican leaders like McConnell.

What about Turzai's comment that voter I.D. was intended to elect Romney, rather than to protect voting integrity?

Criminey, to actually believe that if only Obama had made even greater stupid state spending than the trillions already pissed away, that the economy would now be roaring ahead, is just astonishingly stupid and by that I mean Democrat.

Pogo is so superior to stupid that I bet he can't find a single modern-day economist who agrees with him.

But he is funny! Ha ha. Cartoons and banging drums and caricatures of political opposition as a technicolor ENEMY are sooo gosh-darned hilarious! Mebbe we can forgit about the crashed and restrained economy that way! Haw haw.

Ritmo--my point was not to pillory Geither; rather the first clause of his testimony: "we dont have a plan."

I rather like Erskine Bowles, a staunch democrat, who provided considerable source material for the breakdown of Simpson-Bowles. And in fact, were Mr Romney to win, he might want to consider Mr Bowles for Sec Treasury.

with respect to our basic disagreement on the issue, neither you nor I will change our positions. You and I, it seems to me are a vignette of the larger issue.

I propose to walk away from our disagreements, go out and have a beer, chase wild women, and pursue other more interesting avocations.

They have visions and want people to vote for them. What about facts and specific plans that can be mulled and tested? Visions = Nothings. Vote for our cloud castles, they're prettier than your lives. Under all those visions of sugar plums dancing in your heads we are stealing everything you own. Thanks, burp. Keep your focus of those beguiling visions. We have more coming for you. You'll love them. You WILL love them.

Ritmo. You deflect by which you concede. As to your new assertion you are correct. I do not care if you make money. Not in the least. I would like for you to become rich but that is up to you. I grew up without a pot to piss in. Now I have a rather large one.

"What I do know as fact is that unemployment has been over 8 Percent for over 42 months; the average net worth of Americans continues to decline. All of this under Mr Obama's stewardship of the economy (see Geithner's comment above)."

I'm not an Obama fan, but beginning with our and Europe's manipulations, world-wide economic instability has ensued. We will remain on top of the pyramid, but most everyone is going to shift downward. What could Obama have done differently for us to have a lower unemployment rate at this point in time?

Deborah. Mainly the president could have LED. By extolling and encouraging businesses instead of demonizing them. By encouranging groups to have meetings in Las Vegas instead of ruining the meetings business in that city and others. He could have encouraged, demanded, bureaucrats to cut instead of create red tape. He could have opened lthe door to and encouraged a rational energy policy by inviting nuclear plant building. He could have agreed to extend the tax breaks for all until GDP had reached an agreed level of six percent growth or higher. He could have used his pulpid to encourage bank lending instead of demonizing banks with the outcome that they are terrified of lending lest they fall outside to be determined capital ratios. He could have cheered instead of scolded, encouraged instead of hectored.

What could Obama have done differently for us to have a lower unemployment rate at this point in time?

Oh my, where would you like me to start? How about ending corporate welfare (including pumping endless tax dollars into faux "green" energy like Solyndra) and halving corporate tax rates. Making current income tax rates permanent. Curbing the EPA.

Moving to make Fed government SMALLER and hugely less intrusive. Aiming to eliminate Dept of Education & HUD.

Businesses large and small in this country are refusing to directly hire new employees because they have no clue (and had none for such a long time) because of the hostility towards them that comes from the White House. There is no way they can predict how much they can expose their necks in the short term let alone the long term. This kind of hunkering down is evident in consumer spending, too. Yes, there are occasional up-ticks, but only because people have to go out and replace stuff they've already deferred from purchasing earlier.

The fact remains, there are less total people in the labor force today than when Obama took office. The 8+% unemployment rate is deceptive. It is truly much higher if one takes into account the underemployed and those that have just given up totally.

Charlie Crist, the galvanized corpse, and Todd Akin, the flea-bitten egomaniac, ought to take each other to the prom.

Neither one cares about conservative principles, and Akin in particular seems determined to "rule or ruin." Well, that egregious horse's rump isn't going to rule, but he can sure do a lot of damage going down.

Charlie Crist, the galvanized corpse, and Todd Akin, the flea-bitten egomaniac, ought to take each other to the prom.

Neither one cares about conservative principles, and Akin in particular seems determined to "rule or ruin." Well, that egregious horse's rump isn't going to rule, but he can sure do a lot of damage going down.

By being held hostage to the dictates of the privileged and ignoring whether prosperity is widespread.

Yep, you can tell that Michael grew up without much (as he puts it, without "a pot to piss in"), by two observations:

1. How difficult it is for him to tell the difference between authentic wealth and phony substitutes.

2. How little his parents either cared for or provided for him. If they'd done a better job of that, he'd realize that there is a difference between earned privilege and unearned privilege, and that some things are just plainly inherited.

Perhaps his family was poor by no fault of their own. But you wouldn't know that by Michael's retelling of the situation.

I, OTOH, can perceive that drive isn't everything.

See, that's one big difference between me and him. I'm really curious to know what he thinks of the upbringing with which he was provided, whether his view of it is as condescending as it sounds.

What could Obama have done differently for us to have a lower unemployment rate at this point in time?

1) stop the EPA from increasing the cost of electricity by imposing unnecessary and arbitrary standards (including mercury levels orders of magnitude smaller than if you break one CFC bulb in your house)

2) Allow the Keystone pipeline

3) not pass the horrible PPACA that increases costs on small business owners

4) stop threatening to raise taxes on those who earn more than $250k/year, which includes mostly small business owners

5) stop demonizing and punishing success

6) not increase entitlements ("free" birth control!), not weaken welfare work requirements, not increase unemployment...stop rewarding the people who make bad choices and stop punishing the people who make good choices.

7) not channel hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to campaign donors and cronies.

If Obama had followed the plan Bush used in 2001-2002, which has been proven to work, the economy would have recovered and we'd already be in the midst of another economic boom. That plan is: cut taxes, reduce unnecessary regulation, provide assurances to small businesses they can keep what they earn, tweak govt policy to help energy prices be cheaper.

How much have I mooched and where did it go, ignorant refugee? Last I checked I paid my federal taxes the same as everyone else.

Here is a breakdown of all the non-business owners that cubanbob feels somehow need continued relief in order for the economy to recover (despite the fact that their existing relief isn't doing the economy much good):

Entertainers and athletes,Corporate CEOs,Investment Brokers and SpeculatorsInherited wealthy (i.e. the Paris Hiltons of the world).

Also, a small percentage of lawyers, physicians and marketing/sales professionals make more than $250k annually, but since they are in the distinct minority of a profession averaging $150k/year (physicians) or less (attorneys, etc.), we can safely say that they don't figure in here, not that they contribute all that much to job growth anyway.

So as usual, the usual spouter of empty RW pabulum is full of doo-doo.

Bob, go find some useful outlets for your adopted patriotism. We're all so glad you don't live with Uncle Fidel anymore, but living your life to air your grievances with him by ignorantly bankrupting the U.S. doesn't reflect much better on you. Learn about that of which you speak, Sir. Hatred of another country's ex-leader is not a substitute for actual policy in a functional republic.

BHO shuld have made this his October surprise. The Crist's followers, which I think are all the Repubs and Independents would have joied the Dems to make it a 100% voted for Obama. Then BHO would truly be like the Dear Leader.

Ritmo: Liked your link. Tip for you and the writer: a millionaire does not necessarily make one million or more dollars a year. Many small business owners are millionaires many times over because they saved and invested well. Further, the increase in tax rates particularly hits savings in the rise in capital gains taxes. Interesting article, however, to see the lazy way the lefty mind works.

Ritmo: Liked your link. Tip for you and the writer: a millionaire does not necessarily make one million or more dollars a year. Many small business owners are millionaires many times over because they saved and invested well. Further, the increase in tax rates particularly hits savings in the rise in capital gains taxes. Interesting article, however, to see the lazy way the lefty mind works.

You don't have to have an answer to anything, you can just be ridiculously stupid in cutting down other ideas! That will get Obama re-elected!

You can ignore many good proposals, then cherry pick and distort one minor part, and pretend it was the entire proposal, and then sound like a completely stupid dunce and ask for "serious" proposals, despite having absolutely none of your own!

Of course, it helps to be completely ignorant about cause and effect, just like all good liberal/progressive/democrats!

The only reality that needs to be reckoned with is your stubborn refusal to take Republican statements, on the record, on videotape, in which they openly proclaim their willingness to short-change voter interests for personal political gain, at face value.

You can ignore many good proposals, then cherry pick and distort one minor part, and pretend it was the entire proposal, and then sound like a completely stupid dunce and ask for "serious" proposals, despite having absolutely none of your own!

Ritmo. You do know the proposal to raise the rate on capital gains and its implications? Because that bit essentially means investments will have to do way better to stay even with current returns should the proposed rates take effect.

Oh, and there was no "oversight" on my part. You cannot school me in economics, dude. Stick to sanctimony which is your strong suit.

No one is proposing increasing rates on total financial assets. Enough with the bs charade and amphiboly. If the article mistakenly said "millionaires" when referring to individuals making "millions of dollars of income", then your point was made - but the article's point was not debunked. Repeating someone else's mistake is a great example of the type of stupid herd behavior that I would expect an investor as talented as you want us to believe you are to avoid.

As for carried interest, there could be a way to write into the tax code a greater rate for manipulators like you, who make the majority of their income from speculating, so that they would pay a higher capital gains rate than the average joes. Don't start giving me ideas. Along with being a more astute reader than you, and more moral when it comes to competently dealing with the misfortunes of other people, I'm way more creative.

Ritmo." No one is proposing increasing rates on total financial assets"

I didnt say or imply that. I said that our president is proposing a massive tax increase on capital gains which are currently taxed at 15 percent. Before you accuse others of a lack of reasoning or writing skills you should hone your own, weak, ones.

The higher tax rates aren't just aimed at short-term "speculators." if they were, the administration would only be advocating a hike of short term gains rates. Those are the same as income tax rates and are increasing modestly at the higher marginal brackets. Obama's tax increases are a dagger pointed at the heart of the investment world: long term gains and their twin sister, dividend income.

Jason: Ritmo believes that all investment bankers, of which I am one, rely on speculation to make their living. He is poorly educated and clueless about the world of finance and investment.

Your point is exactly right. The impact, of course, will not be to raise revenue but rather to freeze transactions. If Obama is reelected I will sell any capital gains prior to year end and remain in cash until the rates are lowered.

Ritmo believes that all investment bankers, of which I am one, rely on speculation to make their living.

I never said that.

The point is that you deflect continuously from the fact that YOUR OWN industry's fuck-ups are what caused this mess, and they haven't been fixed.

You yammer on about nuclear power, inspirational business speaking and every manner of irrelevant presidential activity as if THAT will somehow, magically fix the opacity and manipulation that too many in your industry remain addicted to.

Theirs are the actions of economy killers, and yet you act as if differentiating yourself morally, politically and legally from these actors and their ubiquitous actions is harder than carrying a twenty-pound weight anchored to your testicles. If you feel you've been branded with the mark of Cain, it's because you can't seem to identify it on your look-alikes.

You are pathetic. The lengths you will go in order to shirk blame for your colleagues - if not for yourself personally - is why Wall Street's reputation as an American institution has taken a nosedive of an angle steep enough to parallel that taken by the Teahadist Congress. (10% approval and falling).

You cannot speak for yourself as morally superior to them if you continue refusing to identify and propose credible solutions for that REAL problem.